Two campuses within the University of Wisconsin System announced Tuesday they are offering employees a voluntary retirement buyout with a one-time payout equal to 50% of an employee's annual base salary.

The buyouts at UW-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay offer the same payout, but the eligibility requirements are different. At UW-Green Bay, the offer is being extended to all employees 55 and older who have at least five years of service. At UW-Oshkosh, employees must be at least 60 and have 25 years of service to the state to be eligible.

Tuesday's announcements bring to four the total number of campuses seeking to reduce their workforce through voluntary buyouts in the face of state budget cuts. UW-Eau Claire was the first campus to make the offer, followed last week by UW-Superior.(293)

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Sign Sam Shields! And why is Greg Jennings on the list of scary NFC North WRs? The dude was garbage all year and we shut him down every time we played him. Corduroy Patterson is the only MN player I'd be afraid of right now, because of his speed. So you gotta fight speed w/speed, Sam Shields is still the NFL's fastest Corner, so pay the man.

"Jennnings...was garbage all year". So the Pack refused to pay 9 million per year for Jennings--does this make TT look wise? I would say so. Now does the same thinking apply to Sam Shields. Should we let another team take Sam for 10 million per year? Will SS turn to garbage and we look like geniuses? Or will he be an all-pro shutdown corner with 5-6 interceptions per year?

Announce the transition to a base 4-3 Defense and Clay Matthews (1 of the best cover LBs in the game) as the next Ray Nitschke manning the middle at MLB. Clay Nitschke 2014: 164Tackles, 5.5Sacks, 3INTs, 4FF, 23TFL, 12PD

Leptodea, I'd agree that stats are no substitute for a good eye test, but if VanNoy isn't ready for primetime, no one is. with 52 games played (don't think you can have more), 62 tackles for loss (not sure anybody has had more), with 19 pass break ups and 7 INTs (not sure any linebacker has more)

62 TFL for 321 yds, 26 SACKS for 192 yds, 7 INTs for 122 ydsthat's like 635 yds, not to mention the 5 defensive TD. All when the other team supposedly has the ball.This guy's a Claymaker with 11 Forced Fumbles & 3 Blocked Kicks to boot

You have to remember college stats are built against college players, most of who will never make, much less start on an NFL team. Watch the film - you see the same thing you see with most college guys -- a great play or two, followed by long periods of absence, getting pushed around, taking a few plays off, or otherwise proving that they have a lot of work to do to be NFL players.

Capers said next years' D will be built according to who they have and their skill sets. It won't be a classic 4-3 because we simply don't have the right people for it, but something new could be in the works. And, Capers has run 4-3's in the past, so he's not the barrier to it.

Per PFF Sam Shields grades out as about in the middle of the pack of #2 corners. Top 10 LOL. This is what I mean when I say Packer management and fans overrate Packer players. There are about 10 Free Agent corners better than Shields. Sign the one that gives you the best value, be it Shields or another better Corner. Why in the world TT won't sign Free Agents but will throw large contracts at his own players is bewildering. Sign the best players who give you the best value, whether they are currently Packers or not! Its the same amount of money either way.

I used to put a lot of stock in PFF, but the longer I follow them, the more I see that sometimes, they're just flat obviously wrong. To the point where you're just like, huh? This is one of them.

They get most things right, so I still put some stock in them. They've def got it right with Jennings listed as like, the 88th safety in the NFL (ie. wouldn't even be the first backup with over half the teams - that's about dead on, I think.

Colson although I don't agree with the PFF rating of Shields, I do agree with your point about value per the size of the contract, with less emphasis on your own guy versus some other guy. The only point to make in response is that you know a lot about your own guy, but less about some other team's guy.

PFF said multiple times this year that Shields WAS playing at a top level even though the grade may not of reflected that. Their system doesn't take into account who the CB was covering or what his assignment was on any specific play. One thing they made very clear was the Safety play and how it hurt GB's CBs. Also the grading system isn't meant to compare players. It is on an individual basis. Also in 2012 if Shields played a full season he would of graded out as a top 5-6 CB(Right behind Hayward).

It's really bad to use their grading system over their signature stats. The Advanced stats tell so much more. Any avid user of PFF knows as much.

Completions per snap 2012-16.3(1st) (Sherman was 2nd at 14.8)2013-12.3(13th)

Comp % 2013-50% 2012-48%

Really there wasn't much of a difference in a lot of stats. Shields was a top CB in 2012 and not much changed this season. The play at Safety was worse and he covered the top WR's a majority of the time. Since 2012 he has been much better against the run and is a more aggressive tackler. This guy will get at least 7 mil a year and IMO that is a steal.

None of this matters if they can't fix the Safety spot and rush the passer better. GB graded out as one of the worst pass rush teams in the NFL and had by far the worst Safety play. When a QB has as much time to throw as they consistently did against GB this year, it doesn't matter who you have at CB, the WR WILL get open after 5 seconds, and the CB will be at fault in most peoples eyes(Which is completely ridiculous).

ievolution, I consider myself an avid user of PFF. I not very fond of emotion base opinions. I like stats and facts. I went back and reread everything I could find in PFF on Shields and their grading system vs. their signature stats. I found no statements saying "Shields was playing at a top level even though the grade may not of reflected that". I also never found any PFF statement saying that their grading system was inferior to the signature stats. The grading system is akin to how each team decides if they want to keep a player or not by watching every play of every game and see how that player performed. I sure hope you did't just make this stuff up, but it seems like it.

Football stats are tough...too many factors. But, it gives folks like us a baseline to compare.

I have the same issues that BMS mentioned...I'll read a list and then some head scratchers (some with limited snap counts) will enter the mix.

Ditto for NBA sites. Of course a guy will have better advanced metrics when he plays next to Chris Paul/Blake Griffin vs. being ignored on the Bucks by Monta/Brandon and the rest of the funky bunch (who have much less talent).

I would venture to say that an avg. LB on the Seahawks will grade out a heck of a lot better (the corresponding talent LIFTS his rating) than a team like the Bears.

Major Wright is horrible, in part, because his talent in the front seven was weak.

Also, FAs are ranked by some sites on an ascending/descending type scale. Some guys are hitting their prime, some may be heading the other way.

I would rather let him hit the market.IF you have to franchise him to keep him,,let him walk.If hes looking for 10M per,i seriously doubt hes getting that,if he hits the market ( and fairly certain,SS will come back and let Ted match any offer),,Let him see what hes offered,im pretty sure he can be had for less then a Franchise.

I do wonder where the Packers rank in Cap room? I cant imagine there are still to many teams with much more money then the Packers ( cap space wise),so how many teams can actually out bid them if the Packers really wanted him? Theres always that chance he wants to hit the market to determine his worth in FA cy

Thing about Shields is,he was not only undrafted but was a WR at Miami,So, he has only played corner for a few years and is still learning the position and with his speed and athleticism i would say you have to resign him! He knows the system already and should get better as we go forward.Only problem is 17 FA and prob. half of them are really worth resigning and there wont be a whole lot of cash to go around AND that includes signing the draft picks and a few FA that TT will sign this off season

Also the FA class the following season is even bigger for GB. They will have to manage their cap very well. I just don't think they can manage losing Shields from this defense. They will lose amazing speed and great coverage. It won't be replaced in 1 year.

The Problem though is Cobb and Nelson are FA's the following season. If Cobb stays healthy he will probably get closer to 8 mil. Nelson's price is a ? to me but I wouldn't be surprised to see it double. I just don't see Nelson leaving over a mil or two. He just seems like a guy that is happy where he is.

I agree, you hit it,,Cobb will get his 8M ( i can see him take a bit less to stay) and Nelson,you nailed it!We have Bulaga making pretty good money.IF Sherrod beats him out in 14 and we have to pray one of the younger tackles on the roster OR we draft one in 14 and they prove worthy,then Bulaga can be sacrificed and we can save several million in cap space ( he missed the final 7 or 8 games in 2012 with the hip injury,then missed all of 13 with the ACL, so that may be something to really keep an eye on) Shields already turned down a nice offer earlier,so, if someone offers 10M,i wonder if TT matches it OR would Shields stay in GB for 9M or so ( 1M less) also i wonder if they may make Williams take a paycut or restructure or maybe eliminate his final year 2014 and give him a new 3 year deal where he carries a bit less base and saves GB 1M in space

So my guess is that TT and the Pack are offering 8million per year and Shields is asking for 12million per year. That's a lot of spread there. If they settle at 10million per year, will that break the Pack to cover other signings?

Most CB's are around 6 foot. You get much longer than that, and it's harder to twist and turn with WR's, who know where they're going before they go there.

Shields also plays bigger than he is - very flexible, explosive, great extension, body control, etc. Recall the defense on Calvin Johnson where he kept his arm up in the play going all the way to the ground. I thought sure that ball was a TD; most CBs wouldn't have the flex to stay in that play.

I would like to see Shields signed but he should be paid like a good CB not a great one. Shields has been good but he isn't the best CB the team. When Hayward comes back he might be the 3rd best on a team with a bad defense. He deserves a good payday but not to break the bank.

If that's the plan, then he will play elsewhere. He's a very good corner with top speed. He's 26. Someone will give him a full five years with HUGE guaantees. That's the free agency game. Still, he's the top priority for the Packers in free agency.

I don't understand the Heyward man-crushes from some posters. He had a good rookie season playing the slot (not the opponents best player) and then he got a boo-boo and sat out a whole year. How does that fit in with the need to have a tougher defense? What if he misses next season with a hang nail? Heyward is not a guy that the Packers should count on going forward.

I share your thoughts, Mamma... I think a lot of folks are too far out front counting on Hayward to be our next great CB. He had one good season, then a hammy that he couldn't get back in the box.. That follows a pattern we've seen often -- a great season, some flashes of brilliance -- then, pffftt.

More importantly, Hayward hasn't shown he can play outside at all. His limited work there hasn't been good. He may yet develop it but with all our holes on defense, we don't have the luxury of "developing" at outside corner (read: getting burned time and again while learning).

As of now, the Packers have one "very good" corner - Shields. Trammon has been up and down and is certainly on the decline as opposed to being an ascending player. Heyward can't stay on the field. Hyde - most fans want him to move to S. House has never really put it together after the shoulder injury.

The Packers must focus on the front 7 for improving the defense, but letting Sheilds get away would be a mistake.